Debates of March 26th, 2015

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the wise words you just said, encouraging us to have a full debate and giving us time to answer questions.

I wish I could say that it gives me pleasure to speak to this motion. Unfortunately, I cannot. It is not with pleasure that I rise here. It is with a sense of duty that, with the expansion of our mission in Iraq and now into Syria, I see there is no question that we are being drawn into what will turn out to be a long and costly prolonged conflict.

The Prime Minister tells us that our country is under threat. His Minister of National Defence states that if we do not do anything, and allow this organization to metastasize into an actual state with its resources and army, ISIL will recruit and radicalize people from all over the world. The implication is that somehow they will all head to Canada to attack us. Therefore, by bombing ISIL in Iraq and Syria, this will be prevented.

There has been a horrendous number of atrocities right across the world. We just need to bring into question central Africa, which our leader and foreign affairs critic talked about. Millions of people lost their lives. We did not have this debate about going into central Africa. We did not have this debate about going into other areas where people were being liquidated and where atrocities were being committed.

The question is why we have chosen this. I just mentioned the train of thought. I believe that its logic was supposed to send us into combat, and that merits some careful analysis.

It is my understanding that all of the threats to Canada have come over the Internet. There have been messages encouraging fanatics to take up the cause. If that is the case, do we realistically believe that these messages will stop as we continue to bomb the hell out of this region? I submit that they will increase, and ISIL will recruit more deranged individuals to its cause.

From what I have been able to ascertain, Canada is one of roughly ten nations carrying out air strikes. Only one of the other nations, Jordan, is from the immediate region. Another, Morocco, is from northern Africa. The first question that comes to mind is this. If this campaign is so vital to the security of this region and to the world, where are the other countries? We could legitimately state, whether we agree or disagree on this mission, that we have done more than our share. Our resources are limited. In my opinion, they could be better spent reinforcing our protection right here on the ground in Canada under the existing legislation, not what the government is trying to ram through here.

Most of all, we could ensure that no more veterans have to come to Ottawa to demand the assistance that they so rightly deserve. I spent time in the Royal Canadian Navy, and as a former naval officer, I would say that our navy is in a state of disarray. Instead of bombing in other countries, we could spend a lot of this money to beef up our protection and ensure that we have good vessels to protect our coastlines, as an example.

I would also like to submit that we send troops into war as a last resort. This is not a last resort. We need to take a moment to reflect on Afghanistan. In 2005, the previous government was pressured by the then-chief of the defence staff, General Hillier, to send our troops into combat. Other nations and other allies stayed on the sidelines. This tragic conflict cost us 160 lives, 170 deaths by suicide, and hundreds of veterans with permanent physical and mental disabilities. The tragedy in all of this is that we cannot safely say that Afghanistan is a secure country based on all of the democratic principles for which our country stands.

The United States and its coalition of the willing invaded Iraq in 2003. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died. Iraq's army was dismantled. The country turned into chaos. What we are seeing today with ISIL is a direct result of the destabilization of Iraq by the George Bush regime.

The question arises, therefore, of what will happen if Canada withdraws from this conflict. The answer is probably not a lot. It seems to me that the countries who were initially responsible for this mess, in addition to those in the immediate area, should be the ones that take up the charge against the threat of ISIL.

A leading Iraqi researcher, Munqith al-Dagher, stated that as long as the political and social grievances of Iraq's Sunni community go unaddressed, Canadian air strikes against the Islamic State will not defeat the group. Without giving Sunnis hope for the future, the international coalition fighting the extremist groups will not be successful. That is an interesting point. He goes on to say:

ISIL is not the disease; (it) is just the symptom. If we want to (push Islamic State) out of Iraq and the region, we should deal with the real reasons behind this disease....

(Canada’s) prime minister, like U.S. politicians and other politicians in the world...all they think about is sending troops and aircrafts. This is not the way to have a victory over ISIL....

No matter how strong the army is...there will not be any victory without a full cooperation from the people who are living there.

The question, then, is why we are there without having made an effort to seek co-operation, to make sure that the current government of Iraq is in place and works on a solution. The solution to this problem needs to rest with the Iraqis themselves as well as the Americans and others who were responsible for the 2003 invasion. This is not Canada's role. I submit this tragic conflict is not worth any more Canadian lives.

As I mentioned earlier on, in a speech a few months ago, Bernard E. Trainor, a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant general states the following in an article that was published in the Washington Post and appeared in the September 26th edition of the National Post:

The Islamic State presents a problem to be managed, not a war to be won....

The U.S. role should be limited to helping Kurdish forces and the new Baghdad government better organize to keep the pressure on, with U.S. air strikes contingent on their progress....

The idea of destroying the Islamic State...is nonsense....

The situation in Mesopotamia is a violent game of mistrust and self-interest. The Saudis despise the Iranians but will cut deals with them if doing so is in their interest. Iran will play any card necessary to achieve regional hegemony, while Turkey is coy about its own quest for preeminence. The Gulf States talk out of both sides of their mouths. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad uses the Islamic State to create problems for other rebels. Iraq plays at democracy as long as it can subjugate the Sunnis. Shiites and Sunnis fight each other while carrying on intramural warfare with their kinsmen. The double-dealing is almost endless. It doesn’t make sense to us, but it does to the players. After more than a decade of frustration and humiliation, the United States should have learned that the Middle East is no place for Wilsonianism on steroids.

This is a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant general. As our leader stated in his eloquent speech on this issue a few days ago, what happens when we go into Syria without the permission of the Syrian government? Do we become allies of this despotic regime? What is the end game? Who are we going to support? Are we supporting the regime, or are we supporting other factions fighting against ISIL? What do we make out of all this confusion?

None of this makes any sense.

We went from an advise and assist mission to a six-month bombing mission, to a front-line combat mission. We are now getting involved in an 18-month conflict where Canadian troops will exchange fire with members of the Islamic State.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I have been here for nine years, and I have watched the debate unfold on Afghanistan. I have watched the spin coming from the government, as we have watched our people dying on the field and suffering.

We do not need any more of this. We need to look at this, step back, and ensure that war is a last resort.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech, and given the opportunity, I will maybe correct a couple of things he has said.

He mentioned that he thought Jordan and Morocco were conducting air strikes. He should know that Morocco is actually not participating in air strikes.

Countries that are—and these are countries from the region—include Bahrain and Kuwait, which has been providing logistical support to the mission. Bahrain has actually been a participant in the U.S.-led air strikes in Syria since September 2014. Qatar is actually facilitating U.S. air strikes by providing a staging ground for the mission. The United Arab Emirates has also been participating in the air strikes since September.

I will read a quote, and I would like the member to comment. It is from the Kuwaiti minister of foreign affairs. He said that the military attacks are crucial and that their impacts are already providing greater security for the region. Kuwait is a country that knows a thing or two about hegemonistic expansion. It is very close to the region. It is very engaged.

I would like the member to comment on that, please.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and clarification. I will try to be quick, in following your wishes.

I believe it is mainly up to the countries in the region and I am happy to see that other countries, other than the ones I mentioned, are in there on the ground. They are the ones that are faced with this threat in their region and obviously there should be more countries working together with the Iraqi government and all the different factions to work this out.

We are told this is a direct threat to us here. I do not buy that, as I said in my speech; it is not.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. It is always refreshing to have a member enter the debate from the perspective of what is the best way forward, given ISIL, which is a real and serious threat to security around the world; rather than the debate being just about whether “they agree with us, and if they do not then they are doing nothing”.

Something that the Liberals think we could really contribute to this situation is enabling Kurdish forces to protect their own communities and people. The member quoted the general talking about it being key to help the Kurdish forces. That is what the Canadian trainers have been doing. We are calling on the government to increase the training force, because only 650 people have been trained and they need more help.

I just wonder why the NDP is not supporting the idea of more trainers behind the wire to enable the Kurdish forces to defend their peoples.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for her question and thank her for her hard work on this file.

The way I look at it is this. We have seen here that the training mission has gone into a combat mission. We do not believe, and I do not believe, that our people should be in a combat mission in Iraq or in Syria. The other thing is that we have seen the results. We have had one unfortunate death.

The Kurdish have been fighting for years. They have combat experience. I often question why we would be there telling them how to engage in combat experience. I have not really understood that from the point of trying to help them in training, which we have seen has turned into a combat mission.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate contemplates what Canada's role should be with regard to how we respond to the atrocities that ISIL has committed, threats and actions made against the security of Canadian people, its expansionist nature and the humanitarian and human rights crisis it has created.

This morning, the member for Vancouver Quadra said that the motion in front of us, which presents the government's position on this matter, fails our national interest test. I refute this argument and seek the House's unified support for the government's motion.

Those resting their position on this argument should think first that Canada's security, and that of the people we represent, is in fact one of the most important national interests we are seized with. The longevity of Canada's pluralistic peace is born from our collective ability to uphold the freedom from persecution that in turn enables the freedoms of speech, opportunity and personage on which the prosperity of our nation rests.

In this context, the question of national interest as it relates to the motion first rests on whether there is a clear threat to the national security of Canada's people. While it may be difficult for any of us to watch the manifesto video left by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, it clearly shows that attacks by radicalized jihadi ISIL sympathizers have in fact happened on our own soil, even in this very place that I speak today. While this alone should be evidence enough of this threat to our national security, the leadership of ISIL has sent out clear directions calling upon its followers to kill Canadians. ISIL's leadership is on record as stating:

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever ... then rely upon Allah and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.

Further, the footprint of ISIL working within our country to recruit followers is also evident, with the RCMP recently laying charges against Ottawa area men who now stand accused of the same.

Beyond this clear and direct threat to our country, in which this conflict poses a unique interest to Canada, any so-called national interest test applied to the motion should be made within the context of the Liberal leader's opposition to the motion. He has implied that the motion does not adequately acknowledge that Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian crises in the world. This is false, especially given his use of the word “confront”.

The humanitarian crisis caused by ISIL's atrocities will not end unless it is first confronted by the international community using force to stop its expansion. ISIL is expansionist. We have seen the rapid growth of the territory it has taken by force quickly increase. Its adherents seek to expand ISIL's territory in order to establish a so-called caliphate, which would subjugate more of humanity to their warped, wrong and insulting interpretation of Islam and would also enable seizure of assets, which are used to fund and sustain its recruitment and military efforts. Simply put, if ISIL is left to expand its territory unchecked, the scope and severity of the humanitarian crisis it causes in its region, and the attacks it plans on foreign soil, will also continue to increase.

When paired with the acknowledgement that ISIL and its radicalized jihadi sympathizers have in fact carried out attacks against Canadians and have made direct threats to the security of our nation, saying that Canada should only have a humanitarian aid role in the international effort to contain ISIL is akin to saying that it is not in our nation's interest to prevent assault before it happens, rather to stand by and watch it occur and be satisfied in providing food, shelter and victim support services only after the crime has been committed.

This is not to downplay the need for Canada to continue its strong record of funding and delivering humanitarian aid to ISIL's victims. To date, Canada's aid support for the victims of ISIL has provided food to 1.7 million people, shelter and relief supplies to 1.26 million, improved access to education opportunities for up to 500,000 children, and provided psychosocial support and other services for 35,000 women and girls who have experienced gender-based violence in the region. In addition to degrading ISIL's ability to expand and entrench its territory, the military component of the motion allows for Canada's aid to flow to more areas and allows for more accountability and security of aid workers.

It should be clear to all of us that, as the Prime Minister discussed, this debate should not be about choosing between fighting the so-called Islamic State and helping its victims. Rather, to truly confront this humanitarian crisis, we need to do both.

The opposition has implied the motion does not present a clear mission and a clear role for Canada. This is also false. The motion enables a mission to work with our coalition allies to degrade, destabilize and weaken ISIL's position in the Middle East. Under this objective, the Royal Canadian Air Force has played a significant role.

Our special forces have increased the capability of Iraqi security forces to combat ISIL, including their ability to better plan, mount and execute operations against ISIL with increasing confidence and precision. Recently, Iraqi forces have made several advances, for example recapturing Tikrit. As Iraqi forces do not yet have the capability to conduct large-scale offences without coalition support, our continued support in the region is critical.

There is a clear and defined scope for our special forces. They are not allowed to operate in a combat role and are not to seek out combat activities. However, if members of our special forces are fired upon, they will fire back. Our special operations forces are working in an advise and assist role for Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish peshmerga. This is not a role they could undertake outside of Iraq.

With regard to the need for expansion of this mission into Syria, ISIL has been consolidating and moving some of its heavier equipment into Syria because of the significant impact that coalition air strikes have had on ISIL operations in Iraq. Given the threat ISIL poses to our country and the atrocities it has committed, we cannot allow ISIL to have safe refuge anywhere in the world.

Our coalition partners recognize that Canada is well placed to support the coalition objective to counter ISIL's power base in Syria, specifically by utilizing our CP-140 Aurora aerial surveillance, our CC-150 Polaris refuelling craft and our CF-18 air strikes.

To be clear, with regard to the involvement of the Assad regime, we will not seek its permission to conduct the mission outlined in front of us today. Given the request for military assistance from the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIL, the United States is arguing the collective self-defence of Iraq as the basis for operations in the area. The United States has reported to the United Nations that it is taking the necessary and proportionate military action in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing threat to Iraq on the basis that Syria is unwilling and unable to prevent ISIL from staging operations and conducting attacks into Iraq from Syrian territory.

As the U.S. has done, Canada will report to the UN Security Council that Canada is operating in Syria on the basis of collective self-defence, pursuant to article 51 of the United Nations charter. After waffling back and forth on his personal knowledge and personal position on this mission, including making a phallic joke about the role of the Canadian air force, the Liberal leader has also said, “...that the case for deploying our forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts”. It is worth noting the irony of this statement, given that our government has improved upon the abysmal record the Liberals established on this front when they deployed the Canadian Forces to Afghanistan for a combat operation without a vote of Parliament. This shows who would not be trusted in this place on military missions.

By contrast, as we said six months ago, the government is again consulting Parliament on the extension and expansion of Operation Impact. We have provided updates on the mission to the Canadian public. As we have done over the last six months, we will constantly evaluate Canada's role in the region, which is why we have put a clear end date on the expansion of the mission in this motion. This is the essence of transparency.

As for treating the knowledge of ISIL's rape of thousands of women; genocide; beheadings; persecution of religious minorities, journalists, aid workers and LGBTQ; treatment of women as subhuman; and the encouragement of attacks on Canadians as dispassionate facts, I beg to differ. We should be passionate about these things, as they are the antithesis of Canadian values. They are evil and they are wrong. Support for this motion shows that our country is not willing to explain away the nature of ISIL's barbarism or be intimidated into trying to appease an evil that has formed the core of its governance around opposing the freedoms we enjoy by murdering, raping and seeking subjugation through fear.

The risks that we ask our country's men and women in uniform to undertake should not be taken lightly. However, the targeted and defined mission that has the capability to degrade a clear and direct threat to our country, both to its people and pluralistic peace, is the reason many choose to serve our country in the first place. It would be easier for us to turn a blind eye to these facts. However, as we head toward the 150th anniversary of the birth of our nation, we should not take the peace and security we enjoy as Canadians for granted, trading history's proof of what is right and wrong for a Liberal academic exercise, so that we become complacent in protecting its very existence.

In closing, those who have fought for our country in years past have left both a legacy of peace and a clear call to future generations of Canadians. We must always recognize and confront threats to our country's people, values and peace. We stand so charged today. Let us not fail in our choice on how to respond.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. I am very surprised every time a member uses the argument that Daesh represents a clear and direct threat to Canada. Let us look at the example of Martin Couture-Rouleau, who was responsible for the attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. The reason why he was unable to go to Iraq or establish connections with Daesh is that he did not speak Arabic. He tried for several months to make contact with Daesh but did not succeed. He was so frustrated that he could not go and fight that he committed a desperate act with a car and a knife. That is certainly not the equipment typically used by a terrorist group.

My colleague spoke about a clear and direct attack on Canada. I would like her to explain this contradiction.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. No one on this side of the House will ever stand in this place and try to rationalize or conduct an academic exercise on the root causes of terrorism, or perhaps murdering a Canadian officer is not terrorism, maybe, sometimes, sort of.

It is terrorism. It is wrong. It is a direct threat to our country, and we are acting.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to put a question to the minister of state. It has been clear in this debate that all sides of the House see ISIL as a security threat, and want to talk about how to be the most effective in addressing that threat.

The Liberals are strongly for Canada being part of the coalition against ISIL, and the question is how to do that in a way that is in the Canadian national interest. We are clear that it is not with an endless mission to bomb in Syria and potentially strengthen the menacing Bashar al-Assad, who kills his own people. We are looking for a way that we can really contribute.

The trainers are doing such important work in strengthening the Kurdish forces so that they can protect their people and their areas, and take those areas back. It is mystifying to me why the government's motion does not include doing more with training, rather than bombing in Syria and all of the consequences of that.

DFAIT is clear that military operations are a key component defeating ISIL. We agree with that, and the trainers are a part of that. Ultimately, it is only political reconciliation and government inclusiveness that will determine Iraq's stability in the future. Therefore, a political solution is critical to degrading ISIL and stabilizing the state. Where in the motion are—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. Minister of State.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's long preamble and rambling question about openness and inclusivity involving ISIL is a wonderful example for those watching today of the Liberals' lack of any sort of understanding of the gravity of the situation, and their inability to construct a coherent position.

Let me be clear. There is no middle ground to be had on this issue. There is no populist opinion to pander to, as the Liberal leader has shown over the last months, going from phallic jokes to suggesting that Canada's role involves parkas, saying that it is not our role, and embarrassing our country on front after front because of their lack of a position on this issue.

I would just appeal to my colleague opposite, who has stood in this place for many years. I know that of her own volition, she can articulate a position to understand what is right and what is wrong, and finally stand for it. She can look through the substance of this motion, which includes the training of Kurdish special forces to helping the fight against this, grow a backbone and support it.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the last question was long and rambling, and I had a question for the minister. The minister talked about the barbaric acts of ISIL. One can argue that in any war there are always a lot of barbaric acts. I want to ask the minister a question, and perhaps she can talk to me later. What is the government doing to stem the flow of funds to ISIL forces? It is a good question and a legitimate one. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to answer that.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this today. I want to concentrate on the humanitarian effort, but I also want to concentrate on the our amendment to this motion and outline it for MPs in the House and those who are following this debate closely at home.

My belief is that the Conservatives have simply not been honest about this mission from day one. I believe they have misled Canadians about our soldiers being involved in ground combat and have failed to make the case for Canada's military involvement in the Iraq war. That is the premise on which I will base my comments.

Let me talk about the NDP amendment to the motion. I hope the government and the folks at home will listen closely. To me it makes sense, and I think it does to many Canadians.

We are calling on the government to end the participation of Canadian Forces in combat, air strikes, and advise and assist training in Iraq and Syria as soon as possible.

We are calling on the government to boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be immediate lifesaving impacts, including assisting refugees with basic shelter and food needs, investing in water, sanitation, hygiene, health and education for people displaced by the fighting.

We are calling on the government to work with our allies in the region to stabilize neighbouring countries, strengthen political institutions and assisting those countries that are coping with a large influx of refugees.

We are calling on the government to provide assistance to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

We are calling on the government to increase assistance for the care and resettlement of refugees impacted by the conflict.

We are calling on the government to work to prevent the flow of foreign fighters, finances and resources to ISIL in accordance with our international obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions 2170, 2178 and 2199.

We are calling on the government to put forward a robust plan of support for communities and institutions working on de-radicalization and counter-radicalization.

We are calling on the government to report back on the costs of the mission and humanitarian assistance provided to date on a monthly basis to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development until Canadian involvement is concluded.

We are calling on the government to continue to offer its resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces who stand on guard for all of us. I am sure everyone in the House agrees on the last one.

There is a concern, which I have heard from a number of constituents over the last few days, that the Prime Minister is taking us from what we call mission creep to what I guess we could call mission leap, sort of sleepwalking Canada into a wider and ever-widening conflict without any real accountability or exit plan. The Prime Minister indicated the other day that Canada would be there until the end. That sounded like George Bush, but it does not sound like anyone on that side reads history. There is no end. Wars morph and re-morph into something else.

We just have to look at Lybia, which, arguably, is worse off now than it was when we were part of a coalition that intervened there. Afghanistan, arguably again, is not any better off for us having been there. As things change and morph, I would suggest that there really is no end.

The Conservatives have repeatedly misled Canadians about what is happening on the ground, from the combat role being played by our special forces to the cost of the mission, even going so far as to break the law and hiding information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Let me be clear. Canada has no place in this war, and there is a better role for us to play. We should be helping save lives on the ground now, by addressing the deepening humanitarian crisis unfolding in both Syria and Iraq.

There are some unanswered questions, and these are the sorts of questions that I am beginning to get in ever larger volumes from my constituents. Contradicting statements from the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and senior military officials have left my constituents and many Canadians confused about what our troops are doing in Iraq.

In October 2014, Chief of the Defence Staff General Tom Lawson told the media that the mission had evolved, while the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence maintained that exchanging fire with the enemy at the front lines was part of Canada's original advise and assist mission.

By refusing to call this a combat mission, questions are being raised about the effect on the risk allowance and danger pay made to members of the forces. The Conservatives have refused to provide clear answers about the criteria for success in this mission or about an exit strategy.

Despite repeated questioning from the New Democrats and the Parliamentary Budget Officer since September of last year, the government only released details of the incremental costs of the mission on February 16 of this year. The full costs of the mission are still unclear. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the full costs will be at least six times higher than the incremental costs.

What I really want to talk about today are the humanitarian needs in Iraq. It is important to give some statistics and to give people listening to this debate a really clear understanding of the humanitarian crisis that exists.

As we hear in the news every day, humanitarian conditions in Iraq continue to deteriorate. The United Nations has declared the situation the highest level of emergency. Since January of this year, an estimated 2.5 million people have been displaced, and the conditions they are living in are worsening every day.

Of the 2.5 million people displaced so far by this conflict, at least 20% have critical protection needs, including those related to trauma and sexual violence. This is compounded by the regional effects of the Syrian crisis, with neighbouring countries still trying desperately to deal with refugees and violence in Syria. Neighbouring countries that would typically host refugees from Iraq are already overwhelmed by high numbers of refugees from Syria.

Canada should continue to focus on humanitarian needs of displaced communities, including minorities that have been the worst affected, and the host communities caring for them. Food prices continue to rise throughout the region, particularly in Iraq.

Children are disproportionately affected by armed conflict and by displacement. Canada should increase its focus on the welfare for children. Over 70% of internally displaced children remain out of schools across Iraq. Over half a million children between the ages of 6 and 17 are not accessing education services.

What are the immediate needs? They are water, sanitation and hygiene, food security, shelter, health, protection, including psychosocial support and education.

Where can Canada help? The New Democrats have urged the government to boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be immediate life-saving impact, like building winterized camps for refugees, water, sanitation, hygiene, health and the list goes on.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand that NDP members will not support this mission.

However, in the first week of March, our March break week, I was in Kurdistan. I was on the ground and met with refugees. I met with young women who had been tortured at the hands of ISIL. When I asked these people what they wanted, they said that they just wanted to go home. They wanted to go home to the cities, communities and neighbourhoods they had lived in for centuries.

If we do not push ISIL out, if we do not remove it as a threat, how do we get those people back into their homes that they have had for hundreds and hundreds of years? The Yazidis, Christians and Chaldeans have all lived in these regions for years. They have no way to get back home unless ISIL is removed. Why does the NDP not understand that we have to remove the threat?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the surface, that question makes sense. However, it does not make sense when it is understood that ISIL will simply morph into something else. We could bomb ISIL for the next 20 years, but other groups will take its place.

If we look at Iraq now and the fighting that is going on there, I would suggest that the American involvement originally in Iraq really solved nothing. In fact, it has formed all kinds of other groups that are now fighting.

While it makes sense if we could actually get rid of the group completely and free up those homes and homeland for people to go back to, that would be ideal, but that it is an impossibility.

We need to ensure that those who are displaced have the wherewithal to continue to raise their families, grow and live and, hopefully, at some point, be able to gradually get back home.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Thunder Bay—Rainy River noted that I had so much to say I never got to put my question the last time I rose. It is true that this is such a complex issue that it is difficult to condense into a minute. However, sometimes it is the journey and not the destination that is the point. Now I will have a chance to ask the question I was planning for the member across the aisle.

The senior diplomats at Foreign Affairs believe that political reconciliation, good governance, inclusiveness and these political solutions are very important, if not more important than military solutions. However, that is missing completely in the motion and in any of the discussion from the Conservative benches.

What does my colleague suggest in the way of actions that Canada could take to help change the political climate in that area so there can be long-term peace and stability?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. We do not need to be one of the leaders in war. We need to be one of the leaders in reconciliation. We need to be one of the leaders in terms of humanitarian aid. We need to be one of the leaders in terms of war crimes. We need to be one of the leaders that moves forward to ensure that stability can get back into the region, but not through arms, not through weapons, not through war and, quite frankly, not through killing.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this important motion concerning Canada's continuing response to the situation in Iraq.

As we have heard, the terrorist organization, the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, has killed thousands of innocent people, seized significant portions of Iraqi territory over the last year, and threatens to further destabilize the region. In fact, were it not for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and our coalition allies, it would continue to spread.

In early March I visited the Kurdistan region of Iraq as part of a delegation of One Free World International. This was my second visit to the region and it gave me a first-hand view of the ISIL attacks. I met with government officials, peshmerga troops, victims, and refugees. I personally heard their stories. Young women who had been captured and brutalized by ISIL shared their horrific experiences with us and reinforced why this barbaric group must be stopped.

Amid the unfolding crisis, Canada is committed to helping the Iraqi people and assisting Iraq's security forces. As the direct result of military action by Canada and our coalition allies, ISIL's alarming spread and expansion has stopped and it is currently, thankfully, on the defensive. However, we cannot back down. We need to continue degrading ISIL until it is no longer a threat not only to the region but to Canada. Doing so is not only a moral imperative, but it is also a continuation of the strong leadership role Canada has taken in many international operations. From responding to natural disasters to defending unarmed populations, our nation's interventions are guided, in part, by our moral compass and our determination to assist those in need.

The moral imperative we face in this mission is clear. The death cult, ISIL, has declared war on Canada. It has called explicitly for attacks against Canadians. The savage brutality of ISIL is one that requires us to act. It is military and expansionist in its scope. It is genocidal and merciless. It disproportionately targets—and this is one of the most disgraceful parts of it—religious minorities, women, and anyone who disagrees with its savagery. This is not a distant fight that we can debate in the abstract. This is not an enlightening philosophical examination of our role in the world. This is a fight that is very real and it is right here at home. These terrorists hate our society and the Canadian traditions of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

ISIL has called for attacks against Canadians. It has called for attacks in our streets against innocent bystanders with the deliberate intent of making us all feel unsafe. It is doing this by preying on those who are vulnerable, on our most impressionable, on the isolated and the young, through its network of disgusting propaganda, and turning them against us.

This is the nature of the evil we face. There is no reasoning with an evil like ISIL. We are not sitting down to have tea with its members. There is no reasoning with a death cult that wants to massacre, rape, and pillage the developed world. We cannot condescendingly dismiss this as not our fight. ISIL has declared war on us. It has called for attacks on us. It has inspired attacks on us.

There has already been blood spilled in Canadian streets because of ISIL. We cannot say that is not our fight. We owe that to all of those who have been affected by this death cult. We owe that to all of those who fear for their sons and daughters being brainwashed by ISIL propaganda. We owe that to those who live under the tyranny of ISIL right now.

I can assure the members of the opposition who have suggested that we refocus our efforts on humanitarian aid that there is, indeed, a strong role for Canada in providing humanitarian aid in response to this very troubling situation. When I visited the Kurdistan region, I was told by several officials that Canada was an absolute leader in providing humanitarian aid, and they were very thankful. In particular, they paid tribute to our ambassador to Iraq, His Excellency Bruno Saccomani, for the leadership role he has played in working with them. We should be very proud of that.

Our ability to provide food, education, and shelter to those in need can only be done effectively if ISIL is pushed back. I heard that again from the government officials. Yes, there is an Iraqi security force, but we cannot give this fight to it alone.

Canada has the capacity to make a difference in this fight, and the first six months of this mission have demonstrated that. ISIL continues to be on the defensive, which is a welcome new trend. ISIL's recent attempts to regain territory in northern and central Iraq both failed as its onslaughts were successfully fended off by our coalition. By keeping ISIL out of these areas, we are saving lives. We know the difference it makes, because we know so well what ISIL is doing.

We have all heard about mass executions, and I heard that first-hand on my recent visit. We have all heard about the rape and sexual violence. I heard that from brave young women who told me their stories. We have all heard about the horrors that ISIL wages. We have discussed these already in this very place. This is why we cannot let ISIL have a base of operation from which it is unchallenged. ISIL cannot have a safe haven.

The last six months in Iraq have shown that our coalition has the capability to counter this evil head-on. We have decided to join our allies, who have been attacking ISIL in Syria without resistance from the Syrian government. The United States and other coalition partners have had six months of experience attacking ISIL targets in Syria. We will conduct air strikes against ISIL in Syria on the same legal and operational basis as our allies have been doing.

ISIL fighters and equipment have been moving freely across the Iraq-Syria border. ISIL has been consolidating and moving some of its heavier equipment into Syria because of the significant impact that the coalition air strikes have had on ISIL operations in Iraq. We have had success attacking ISIL targets in Iraq, and we will now expand to where ISIL is consolidating.

The Canadian Armed Forces record on the world stage is truly impressive. The men and women who serve our military continue to demonstrate their skill and dedication. Thanks to the readiness and agility of the Canadian Armed Forces, Canada is able to provide strong leadership and support to the international community.

It is because of our commitment to promoting international peace and security that we are assisting the people of Iraq. That is why I am proud to stand in the House tonight to support the government's motion for our continued role in helping people around the world who need our help and support. Canada is a world leader. We have so much to be proud of, and there is much more that we need to do.

God bless the people of Iraq and Syria as they go through the terrible situation that they are dealing with. Canada will always stand with them.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the sound of defeat, the sound of another Vietnam war. It is clear those wars are lost. The government lost the Afghanistan war. Now it is another defeat. It is clear.

One of the problems, if we do not attack the first problem, is the corruption of the Iraqi government. We do not attack the co-operation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the Islamic State. There is no possibility to win this war with only military attacks.

The government clearly does not understand one important point: that one important part of the Sunni population of Iraq supports the terrorist organization. That is the problem. Why does the population support the terrorist group? That is the problem.

I listened carefully. I am interested in a clear response.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from my personal experience in actually meeting with victims of these very vicious attacks in Iraq and listening to their stories, all I can say is that they were only attacked, raped, and brutalized because they were women. They were only attacked, raped, and brutalized because they were Christian, or Chaldean, or Yazidi, or any of the other religious minorities that had lived in Iraq for centuries with no difficulty. They got on with their lives and raised their families, generation after generation.

We are there to support our fellow human beings who are being viciously attacked by this barbaric cult. That is our role. I am proud our government is standing up for these people and helping them out.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to be very clear on the point that voting against this resolution does not mean supporting ISIL. The government tries to give the impression that there is no other option and no other choice and that those who do not vote for this motion are supporting ISIL.

I have news for the government. We in the Liberal Party and, I believe, Canadians as a whole do not support ISIL. Their barbaric, revolting actions that they take against humanity are abhorrent and should be acted on, where we can.

The issue is the manner in which the government seems to want to bring Canada more and more into a situation without any clarity, end game, or anything of that nature. The Prime Minister's Office, the Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have not been transparent and open with Canadians on this mission.

I have a question for the member. We have a wonderful Kurdish community that I met with just last weekend. Its members have thoughts in terms of their role. What does this member believe their role could be and how Canada might be able to enhance the Kurds' role?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, this is coming from the party that took us into Afghanistan and never had a debate in the House of Commons on that. There was never a debate in the House of Commons like we are having tonight.

Second, I am glad the hon. member met with members of the Kurdish community. I did, too, last Friday, with the Minister of National Defence. They said that they want Canada there protecting their people. They want us to do more. They want our military presence there. They support Canada's involvement in fighting ISIL. They made it extremely clear.

Only the Liberal Party can have it both ways. Liberal members can pretend they support these things, and vote against them. We are taking action. We are standing up for the people in Iraq and Syria who have suffered at the hands of this barbaric cult. We will continue to work with our coalition allies to do the right thing to make sure people can live in peace and freedom in their home countries.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to take part in this important debate. I want to make it very clear, because the opposition does not seem to understand, that we are debating this today because jihadi terrorists have declared war on Canada and our allies. That is why we are here today and why this debate is taking place. They have specifically targeted Canada and have urged their supporters to attack “disbelieving” Canadians “in any manner”. They said they should do that to make us feel insecure in our homes.

I want to take another second to reiterate something that a number of members have talked about. This is what the so-called spokesperson for the Islamic State said:

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European--especially the spiteful and filthy French--or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner....

That is what this brutal group has said. Those bone-chilling statements are exactly why I am very proud to be supporting this government and this Prime Minister as we move forward with another motion to do even more in the fight against the Islamic State. As has been mentioned by a number of speakers already, one of the most important things a government can do is protect its citizens, and that is what I believe this motion would do.

We have seen first hand that this is not a problem in a faraway land, or as the Leader of the Opposition said, that it is someone else's war. That is simply not true. On October 20, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent lost his life at the hands of an Islamic State-inspired terrorist. On October 22, Corporal Nathan Cirillo was shot as he stood on guard at the National War Memorial. He was killed by an Islamic State-inspired terrorist simply for wearing the uniform of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

That is why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as the Liberals and the NDP would have us do, and that is why we are very proud of the fact that we are part of this international coalition to push back and save the people in this region against the Islamic State.

It is, of course, very important that we fight terrorism and the ideologies that drive people to engage in violent extremism both at home and abroad, and I am proud that this government has been succeeding on both fronts. I want to speak just a bit about what we are doing here at home.

Our government introduced Canada's first counterterrorism strategy. It has four pillars: prevent, detect, deny resources, and respond. We also passed the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it illegal to travel for terrorist purposes. This is important legislation, because we have recently seen the phenomenon of westerners, including Canadians, travelling to Iraq and Syria to join in the fight with the Islamic State.

We also passed the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which allows the government to revoke citizenship from dual nationals who engage in the traitorous act of taking up arms against the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces or from those who are convicted of terrorist offences. Shockingly, the leader of the Liberal Party suggests that it is not a Canadian value to revoke the citizenship or even the passport of a dual national who takes up arms against a Canadian or who commits a terrorist act. That is what the leader of the Liberal Party thinks.

On this side of the House, we find it completely unacceptable that we would share the gift of Canadian citizenship with anyone who thinks that the way to solve a political disagreement is by capturing people and cutting off their heads or capturing people and putting them in cages and lighting them on fire. That is not what we stand for, and that is one of the other reasons we are so engaged in this fight. These are barbaric actions, and we will continue to do our part.

We also introduced the protection of Canada from terrorists act and recently introduced the anti-terrorism act, 2015. This act is important for a number of reasons. It would update the no-fly list, which would give our partners better power and better authority to ensure that our airlines are safe. It would criminalize those who would seek to promote terrorist activity, such as with the videos I spoke about earlier. We know that the Islamic State uses videos to encourage people to commit terrorist acts in countries around the world, including Canada. It leads to their radicalization. Under the bill, that would become a criminal offence. It would give our law enforcement partners, those we task with keeping our country and our communities safe, important new tools so that they could do that job. It would enhance oversight and would include judicial authorization for the new authorities we would give these security agencies to keep us and Canadians safe.

We have also heard and understand that it is very important that we also address the humanitarian impact of ISIL in this region. Canadians have said this and our government believes this. That is why we have been working with United Nations agencies and agencies such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and other non-governmental organizations in the area to provide assistance. What does this assistance provide? It has provided food for up to 1.7 million people and shelter and relief supplies for 1.26 million people. It has also improved access to education opportunities for up to 500,000 children.

Finally, I want to take a moment to speak directly to the people of my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. Obviously the decision to send the Canadian Forces into harm's way is one that is very difficult. Many speakers have already highlighted the fact that it is one of the most difficult decisions a member of Parliament or a government will ever make. I want to say very sincerely and directly to my constituents that I believe that it is very important for Canada to continue to play a role to ensure the safety and security of our country and our community.

Throughout the great history of my riding and the communities that make up Oak Ridges—Markham, mainly Markham, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Richmond Hill, and King City, we have always been ready to answer the call to service both at home and abroad. Our local regiments, the Governor General's Horse Guards and the Queen's York Rangers, have always been prepared and have always answered the call when conflict was brought to our shores or when our assistance was needed abroad. I am very proud of the fact that we have such a rich history.

In my riding we have very important non-governmental organizations, churches, and community groups that are willing and ready and are always providing assistance to people in need.

While I understand that not all of my constituents might necessarily agree with the actions we have taken or the actions we will continue to take, I do know that all of my constituents agree that it is very important that we do whatever we can to ensure the safety and security of our nation and our community. I believe that what we are doing here and what we have done over the last six months is in the very great tradition of Canada as an important ally, a reliable partner, and a nation that seeks peace but is always willing to fight anyone who would seek to destroy what generations of Canadians have built here.

It is with that that I say to my constituents and the House that I am very proud to support the motion. I hope that the opposition will reflect on that and the dangers to Canada and will do the right thing and support the motion to support the extension of the mission.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I attended the funeral of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. He was the victim of a despicable act, but I do not understand how the parliamentary secretary can pretend that this despicable act had a direct connection to the group Daesh, which specifically targeted Canada. The reason Martin Couture-Rouleau committed that despicable act was that he was not able to make any connection with the Daesh group. The reason he was not able to make any connection, although he tried for several months, was that he did not understand or speak Arabic. He was so frustrated that he committed this crazy act and randomly took an innocent member of our proud Canadian Forces. How can the member explain this contradiction?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused by the member's question. Warrant Officer Vincent was targeted by an individual who committed a terrorist act on Canadian soil. He killed a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Two days later, another Canadian Armed Forces member, not 500 metres from this place, was gunned down by another radicalized terrorist.

These are people who have declared war on Canada. These are people who have suggested that other people should kill not only Canadians but our allies. It is for that reason that Canada has taken the steps we have taken to ensure that Canadians can be safe not only at home but abroad.

I would ask the member to reflect on some of the things we have talked about here today and some of the stories we have been told, in particular what we heard earlier from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. These are people who are asking for our help, and in the great tradition of Canada, we will respond with that help.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear, the Liberal Party of Canada has never been opposed to deploying our armed forces for combat when it clearly serves Canada's national interest.

Military missions designed to uphold that interest must have transparent objectives and a responsible plan to achieve them. To give an example, Canada has a clear interest in training Iraqi forces to fight and destroy ISIL. We can and should do this training away from the front lines, as our allies have been doing. That is an example of the type of thing Canada can excel in. There is no doubt about that, and Canadians as a whole would support that sort of action.

What the government does not seem to recognize is that it has not been straightforward with Canadians. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister explain to the House why, for example, the Prime Minister was evasive on the issue of the original combat role Canadian soldiers were going to be putting themselves into? At one point he said no, and then we—